Another LIBERAL MOONBAT Hypocrite

AG opens probe into ACORN video flap
Attorney General Jerry Brown's office has opened an investigation into the controversy surrounding videos that purportedly show members of community organizing group ACORN giving advice on how to open a brothel.

In a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger dated Sept. 25, Chief Deputy Attorney General James M. Humes said the office has "opened an investigation of both ACORN and the circumstances under which ACORN employees were videotaped." The governor had asked Brown two weeks ago to look into the incidents.

The probe was sparked by a series of hidden-camera videos in which a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute are advised on how to set up a prostitution business by people identified as workers for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. The videos were taken in Washington D.C., San Diego, San Bernardino and cities in several other states.

Members of the organization are also under investigation in other states for alleged irregularities in registering voters.

Friday, October 30, 2009
Jerry Brown's office said it would stop taping without in...

(10-29) 22:28 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A spokesman for Attorney General Jerry Brown acknowledged Thursday that he taped a phone conversation with a reporter for The Chronicle this week without disclosing the fact or asking permission - and admitted he has taped conversations with other news reporters.

Scott Gerber, spokesman for Brown's office, made the admission after the publication of a story in the newspaper that detailed consumer activist Harvey Rosenfield's criticisms of revisions the attorney general made to the summary of a ballot measure that deals with car insurance rates.

California Penal Code Section 632 prohibits the recording of private telephone conversations without consent, and the state is one of 12 states that require notification of all parties prior to taping.

Jim Humes, chief deputy attorney general, said in a statement to The Chronicle Thursday: "In the future, Mr. Gerber will not tape any conversation unless all parties agree." He added that Gerber has recorded "a few other conversations" with reporters and will contact them.

First Amendment advocates said Gerber's actions, whether illegal or not, reflect poorly on the office of the state's top legal official, Brown, who is the Democratic front-runner in the 2010 governor race.
'Big political thing'

"Here's the implication: Reporters now have one hell of a story about a guy who's running for governor of California," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, based in Virginia. "He's just lit a fire under a real big political thing."

David Greene, executive director of the First Amendment Project in Oakland, said Brown's office "could make a decent argument that that's not a confidential communication and (the reporter) didn't have reasonable expectation of privacy."

But Greene said the action raises a question of whether it is a "spooky government thing to do. I can't think of any reason why they would record surreptitiously. ... There's a gotcha quality to it."

The secretly recorded conversation came to light after Chronicle senior political writer Carla Marinucci contacted Gerber Wednesday for his response to Rosenfield's criticisms.

She sought comments from the attorney general's office on allegations from Rosenfield, the founder of ConsumerWatchdog.org, who charged that Brown made changes in the ballot measure's summary because had caved in to pressure from the Mercury General insurance firm. The company gave $13,000 to Brown's campaign in June.

Rosenfield said Brown's revision omitted the possibility that the measure would increase insurance rates for some Californians.

Gerber called Marinucci and said the summary was a fair reflection of changes that the initiative's sponsors, a coalition of consumer and insurance groups, made to the initiative's wording. He told her that Humes, and Jonathan Renner, a senior assistant attorney general for government law, were on the line to address her questions.

When the story was published on The Chronicle's Web site, SFGate.com, Wednesday evening, Gerber contacted an editor at the paper and said Humes' comments were not fairly reflected in the article. He e-mailed the editor a transcript of the conversation between him, Marinucci and the two attorneys.

Marinucci called Gerber Thursday and asked whether he had taped their conversation. "I did," he said.

Asked why he believed such an action was appropriate, Gerber responded, "To me, it's useful to have a record."

"I think that's all I should say right now," he added.
It's routine

Gerber was asked if he had recorded conversations with other news reporters. "Sure, I've done it before," he said. "Reporters routinely record my conversations."

Asked if the recording of news media conversations was a practice of the attorney general's office, Gerber said, "I'm not going to say anything further at this time."

In his statement Thursday, Humes said that "this was an on-the-record conversation between four individuals - a reporter and three staff members. We knew that every word said could end up in the next morning's Chronicle. Mr. Gerber taped the conversation, not to record the reporter's questions, but to have a record of what our own staff members said."

But Dalglish said she believes the actions of Brown's office are outrageous and probably illegal.

"California law says all parties to a conversation must know they are being taped," she said. "So if one person didn't (know), it's a violation of the law, and it doesn't matter that it's the AG's office doing the taping."

First Amendment Coalition executive director Peter Scheer said the incident reminded him of former President Richard Nixon secretly recording conversations with his staff and journalists.

"When Richard Nixon was damned for recording conversations with his staff and members of the press, people thought that was sleazy and unethical and immoral - even if it was technically legal," Scheer said. "Because it was seen as a violation of trust, a breach of people's expectations of a certain degree of confidentiality."

Scheer added that there was little excuse not to obey the statute, especially by an employee of the state office charged with enforcing the law, "when all you have to do is ask, 'Is it OK with you if I record this conversation?' "

Scheer said recording such conversations without notification or consent is "not something you should do - whether you're a journalist on one hand or someone who is talking to journalists on the other hand."